Zao Thanatoo: January 2009

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Triablogue: Vaccination & abortion

Friday, January 30, 2009

Responding to ResponsiveReiding 4 - Biblical Theology

Pastor Reid’s Position Biblically Examined

(Note: For the sake of full disclosure to those reading this paper, I must admit up-front that dealing with the biblical perspective on this issue is my weakest point. I am a layman. I spend eight hours a day with a shovel or rake in my hand, not a Greek NT or some theological tome. I know so little Greek that I would not be able to find a toilet in the Hellenistic world. However, while I may not be able to do the extensive exegesis of a NT scholar, I will attempt to faithfully treat pertinent passages of Scripture, within my humble and limited capabilities.)

Reid’s exposition of his view biblically seems to run to-and-fro throughout the Bible, in one place citing briefly Spurgeon’s interpretation of a parable, then quickly flipping through a dozen or so OT typologies before quoting some of the “universal” passages of the NT, such as John 3:16, and so on (I blame the blog format for this, not Reid). We can see that Shedd, Ryle, Hodge, et al, might hold to this view, but (as stated before) “What saith the Scripture?”

There are legions of Scripture passages which deserve treatment in reference to this subject (which is, I think, the reason why Reid’s blog posts seem a bit scattered in this regard; the biblical data to be considered on this point is massive). I won’t even begin to scratch the surface of much of that which is pertinent and a much lengthier treatment in this regard ought to be undertaken by someone. However, I would like to very briefly survey pertinent Scripture passages, then more closely examine some which, in my limited estimation, could provide “talking-points” for further discussion, as well as potential “tipping-points” for those in disagreement. So, “what saith the Scripture?”

The Scripture says that Jesus died for all people (2 Cor. 5:14-15; 1 Tim. 2:1-6; 4:10; Titus 2:11), for the whole world (John 1:29; 3:16-17; 1 John 2:2; 4:14; Rev. 5:9), for everyone (Isa. 53:6; Heb. 2:9) and that God does not want anyone to perish (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). They also say that Jesus died for some people but not all people (Matt. 1:21; 20:28; 26:28; Rom. 5:12-19), for His sheep (John 10:11, 15, 26-27), for His church (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25), for the elect (Rom. 8:32-35), for His people (Matt. 1:21), for His friends (John 15:13), and for all Christians (2 Cor. 5:15; Titus 2:14). How are these statements of Scripture to be understood?

To the atheist, the answer is clear: it is yet another irreconcilable contradiction in the Scripture. To the Arminian, the answer is clear: Christ died for everyone in the same sense, including believers. To the Calvinist, the answer is clear: Christ died only for the elect, and when Scripture says “all” or “world” there is a reason within the context which allows us to limit those statements to actually mean “all the elect” or a “world of the elect,” etc., since we know not all people are elect.

In the context of this discussion, we reject the atheist’s contention out of hand. We also, I think, reject the Arminian’s contention as logically over-simplified, especially since they reject the related biblical doctrines regarding election, grace and man’s nature. But I have to ask, does the contemporary Calvinist position really do justice to the full weight of the idea that Christ died “to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:20)? (all emphases mine)

Do we, as Calvinists, do justice to the full weight and implication of the statements of 1 Tim. 4:10, which states, “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe”? In what sense does our formulation of limited atonement state that Christ is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe? By contextually limiting “all people” to be “all (kinds of) people?” And what are we to make of the use of the term “especially” regarding “those who believe”? Does our doctrine of limited atonement state that there is a special sense in which Christ is the Savior of those who believe, over against the way in which He is the Savior of all people? This would appear to be the plain sense of the verse, apart from our doctrinal presuppositions.

The same intent appears to be at the heart of 1 John 2:2, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Is there really contextual warrant here to make the word “our” refer only to “John’s Hebrew audience,” as Owen does? Or is this verse teaching that Christ has propitiated not only the sins of every believer, but every sin ever? Again, this seems to me to be the plainest sense.

A third passage which I think carries great weight in reconciling the “universal passages” with the “particular passages” is 2 Peter 2:1, “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” In what sense has the Master “bought” false teachers who are swiftly destroyed? This is the language of redemption, but it is used here in reference to those who are obviously non-elect. What are we to make of this?

(Note: I think Owen’s treatment is weakest here (along with those who follow in his exegetical footsteps in this regard), in that he seeks to somehow identify “bought” with “created,” (or at least “anything but redeemed”) and that the term translated “Master” or “Lord” here cannot mean “Christ,” but merely “God,” finding great significance in this distinction. This, I think, deserves the designation of “hermeneutical gymnastics.”)

Let me say first that I think we, as faithful Christians, are to believe all of these verses, in tension if we must, until a reconciliation can be made clear. This is what I think Reid is attempting to do. Apart from all of the experiential discussions of hyperCalvinism and the free offer of the Gospel, at heart I think Reid is trying to be utterly faithful to the teaching of Scripture above all else (even Owen’s dearly-held, “logically impeccable” argument for his view of the atonement).

I also think that if the three verses above are given their full face-value, we must admit that the contemporary Reformed consensus doctrine of limited atonement fails the most important test: it isn’t biblical. It denies things which Scripture affirms, such as that Christ, in some sense, bought non-elect false teachers. A Universal Atonement/Particular Redemption view appears to fit quite neatly the language of 1 Tim. 4:10 and 1 John 2:2, without doing violence to the universalistic or particularistic passages of Scripture, but instead seeking to reconcile them all.

Conclusion: Reid’s view is a more biblically faithful attempt at reconciling the Scriptural tension of universalistic and particularistic passages than classical/Wesleyan Arminian or Owen-like Calvinistic attempts.

The Implications

I would like to briefly highlight an aspect of this doctrine of the atonement, so that some of the specific implications of this doctrine are also given some limited treatment. (Note: In discussion with others on these points it seems that the implications of this doctrine are causing the most distress, especially the idea that Christ has died for those in hell. I would be remiss if I didn’t at least make an attempt to briefly deal with such implications. I will call this the “double payment” or “double jeopardy” objection.) I have referred above to the difference between a “singular intention” and a “multiple intentions” theory of the atonement as being a critical distinction in understanding the atonement. I think that Phil. 2:8-11 gives us a view of the highest intent of God in Christ’s atonement: His own glory (soli Deo Gloria); and the implications of this verse are immensely valuable to our discussion.

“And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Phil. 2:8-11)

The highest intent of God in Christ’s humbly obedient death on the cross is that His name would be highly exalted above every other name. This death on the cross leads to every knee bowing and every tongue confessing that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Every knee bows and tongue confesses, even under the earth. You see, in dying on the cross Christ purchases everyone as His possession (He even buys false teachers). He then graciously applies his forgiveness and righteousness to the elect (double imputation and justification leading to sanctification), and justly and righteously applies His wrath to the non-elect, perfectly punishing their sins because He is intimately familiar with the wrath due to each one.

God overcomes all rebellion and sin, not through “Christ + hell,” but through Christ alone (solus Christus). His triumph on the cross leads both to the salvation of the elect and the damnation of the wicked. Christ reconciles all things to God, in that every knee bows and tongue confesses that He is Lord, some in rejoicing and worship and some in fear and dread. The reconciliation of the elect is not in the same sense as the reconciliation of the non-elect, but there is a sense in which all things are reconciled to Him. Unrepentant and unforgiven sinners are no longer rebel atheists and their sinful disregard for God has been crushed and ended. All sin is utterly defeated at the cross. There is accomplished in Christ’s atonement a reconciliation of all things to God, but Christ applies this reconciliation in accordance with God’s secret, electing plan: the elect receive undeserved forgiveness, experiencing the reconciliation of a child with their Father; the non-elect, unrepentant sinner experiences the reconciliation which exists between a conqueror and the conquered. Every knee bows and every tongue confesses to the glory of God, because of Christ’s cross and nothing else.

(Note: Christ therefore dies in order to establish the free offer of the Gospel to all and every individual, in that Christ has made sacrifice for every sin and has made the offer of reconciliation to everyone. The idea that Christ has died in some sense for the non-elect in hell should not be nearly as troubling upon further consideration. We believe, in accordance with unconditional election, that God creates the non-elect in order to display His just wrath upon them. That Christ atones for them in order to display this wrath should not give us any more difficulty than the idea that He creates them for such wrath. His glory in wisdom, justice and mercy is most fully displayed in this way. Also, the question might be asked, “Why would Christ die for those already in hell?” This objection not only misunderstands the eternal perspective of God on Christ’s atonement, but even taken on its own assumptions it also begs the equal and opposite question: “Why should Christ die to save those already in heaven?”)

Summary

In Reid’s view of the atonement we find a historically orthodox, systematically coherent, biblically faithful doctrine. The prevailing contemporary Reformed consensus (exemplified by John Owen’s argument) is found to have unbiblical presuppositions leading to unfaithful Scriptural interpretations. May God be glorified to the utmost in our doctrine, as well as our on-going discussions of Him in this and every regard.

sdg

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Responding to ResponsiveReiding 3 - Systematic Theology

Pastor Reid’s Position Logically Examined

In examining the systematics relating to Reid’s view on the atonement, we are essentially discussing the relations of the “five points” of classical TULIP-theology: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints.

It may be of some value at this point to list briefly the points of agreement between Reid’s position and the contemporary Reformed view, in order to see what is truly at stake here theologically. Both sides would affirm that Christ’s atonement is penal; substitutionary; vicarious; infinitely sufficient and valuable; efficiently and redemptively applied only to the elect.

Now if both views are in such agreement about such central points of the doctrine of atonement, wherein is the disagreement? The disagreement is that Reid would affirm that more is intended in the scope of Christ’s atonement than those things listed above, which those holding to the contemporary view would deny. Where those with the contemporary Reformed view would “stop,” Reid continues forward a few steps.

The contemporary Reformed view is, again, essentially that of Owen in The Death of Death, namely, that the unconditional election of God is the “limitation factor” on the scope of the atonement of Christ. Christ dies with the singular intent of atoning for the sins of the elect. Period. Election and atonement, in this formulation, have a direct one-to-one correspondence. Logically, a high view of election tends to lead one most readily to a “narrower” view of the extent of the atonement. Owen’s logic in this regard is impeccable.

(Note: At this point it may be of some referential value to quote Owen’s famous syllogism regarding the question, “For whom did Christ die?”:
The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:
1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.
In which case it may be said:
1. That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
2. That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
3. But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?
You answer, "Because of unbelief." I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!")

Certainly, the contemporary view (as demonstrated in Owen’s argument) is logically compelling, if one grants that its presuppositions are true and biblical. It appears that Reid would contend with those presuppositions (or possibly with the formulation of Owen’s argument itself), though he unfortunately doesn’t do the legwork on this one, but refers to Neil Chambers’ Th.M. thesis on this point, without quotation or summary. (Note: Having read it, I can say that Chambers’ treatment is quite compelling and, frankly, someone should have “polished” and published it by now. It sheds a great deal of light on Reid’s contention with Owen regarding his argument cited above.)

However, I think Reid’s contention in this regard might be summarized in an earlier statement of his (though I don’t want to misapply his words out of context), to the effect that Owen and contemporary Reformed folks tend to create a false dilemma in answering the question of the scope of the atonement. The idea here is that if God has only one intention for Christ’s atonement (i.e. the saving of the elect) then Owen’s “either-or” argument is irrefutable. However, if there is more than one intention in sending Christ to the cross, this opens the doors to multiple valid “both-and” logical conclusions regarding the scope of the atonement.

(Note:Specifically he says in this regard, “When we ask the question ‘for whom did Christ die?’ we tend to ask it in a way that prevents us (I believe) from answering it in full concert with the Scripture. We normally state our answer by saying: ‘He either died for all men and failed to save all men, or He died only for the Elect and certainly saved them.’ But the very way the question is asked assumes the atonement could only do one thing. That God’s design in it was absolutely single. That He had only one intention in offering up Christ and thus only one thing was accomplished. Instead, I’m convinced now that the atonement accomplished a number of things. Some of those benefits are applicable to all mankind, and others only to the elect by virtue of the fact that they are obtained only by faith, which is given to the elect alone. Yes, Jesus came to die ‘for His people,’ to infallibly accomplish the salvation of the elect – those sovereignly and unconditionally elected unto salvation by the Father before the worlds began. Yet, I do not believe that is ALL His atoning work was to do.”)

This is the crux of the disagreement, logically-speaking. Does Christ in going to the cross have a single intention, or does He intend multiple results from His death and resurrection?

Conclusion: Both the contemporary view and Reid’s view are logically coherent, granting certain presuppositions in each case. However, which presuppositions are biblical determines which position is finally true.

A Brief Theological Interlude

The “sufficient-efficient” formula regarding the atonement ought also to receive a certain amount of consideration from those examining the theological perspective on the atonement. The sufficient-efficient formula is the distinctively Reformed view that Christ’s atonement is infinitely sufficient for the salvation of all of humankind (and sufficient to save a billion more worlds full of sinners as well, to paraphrase Owen) though it is only efficiently applied to God’s elect. (Note: The sufficient-efficient formula was originally espoused by the Scholastics of the medieval period in the church, but has largely fallen into disuse outside of Reformed circles.) This is, I think, a truly biblical affirmation regarding the immense value and power inherent in Christ’s atonement.

However, I wonder if there is a bit of inconsistency here for those who affirm the sufficient-efficient formula as well as the limited atonement view of Owen. If Christ has not in any sense died for the sins of the non-elect, then in what meaningful sense is Christ’s sacrifice sufficient for them?

One might answer that it would be sufficient for them if it were applied to them. But wouldn’t that application be, in fact, the affirmation that Christ has died for their sins? If Christ has not died for the sins of the non-elect, then, even though His sacrifice is of inestimable value, it is still not sufficient to save them, in any meaningful sense of the term “sufficient.” Owen (rightly) desires to highly esteem the value of Christ’s sacrifice, but “value” is not identical with “sufficiency,” and Owen (and those who follow him) equivocates on this point, in effect “giving with one hand what the other hand is taking away.” In other words, to say that Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to save everyone means that in some sense Christ must have died for everyone’s sins.

The sufficient-efficient formula can only be consistently affirmed by one who holds to a multiple-intention view of the atonement. Owen is inconsistent on this point. (Note: One could say, Owen’s view of Christ’s sacrificial sufficiency is insufficient.)

Next post we will look at Reid's position from a biblical standpoint.

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Triablogue: The onus of miracles

Responding to ResponsiveReiding 2 - Historical Theology

Pastor Reid’s Position Historically Examined

While it is neither wise nor biblically-warranted to attempt to discern another’s thoughts or intentions beyond what he explicitly states, by the immense number and length of quotations from various Reformed theologians one might think that it is Reid’s greatest desire to demonstrate that his view is not outside the pale of historical Reformed orthodoxy. I think it would be historically naïve (at best) to try to claim any sort of monolithic status for the contemporary consensus among Reformed folks regarding the extent of the atonement, and Reid demonstrates this almost ad nauseam by quoting or referring us to W.G.T. Shedd, Charles Hodge, R. L. Dabney, John Davenant, Bishop Ussher, Isaac Watts, Philip Doddridge, John Bunyan, J. C. Ryle, John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon, Phil Johnson, John Murray, R.B. Kuiper, Louis Berkhof, Curt Daniel, Andrew Fuller, Thomas Watson, B.B. Warfield, and the Heidelberg Catechism. While the view put forth by John Owen in his The Death of Death in the Death of Christ holds particular sway over the contemporary Reformed scene, one cannot but admit that there have been other views accepted as orthodox by those within the historically Reformed tradition. To do otherwise would be to historically “cut off your nose to spite your face.”

(The assertion by Pastor Leuck that Reid’s position “alters centuries of Biblical understanding on the extent of the atonement” is historically untenable. See The Extent of the Atonement: A Reformed Dilemma from Calvin to the Consensus by G. Michael Thomas.)

Conclusion: Reid’s view is within the pale of historical Reformed orthodoxy.

A Brief Historical Interlude

Let’s notice at the outset that Reid’s position does not fall easily into the categories most often associated with the contemporary Arminian or contemporary Calvinist consensus regarding the atonement. He is not advocating four-point Calvinism (called Amyraldianism); nor is he advocating a merely universalistic atonement (as in classical and Wesleyan Arminianism); nor a merely limited atonement ("high" Calvinism). To lump Reid’s view in with these other categories is inaccurate and would lead to misrepresentation as well as wasted refutation (such as arguing for limited atonement as an implication of unconditional election, which Reid affirms, rather than dealing directly with his theory of the atonement).

Historically-speaking, Reid is affirming more than Arminianism, as well as more than the contemporary Calvinistic consensus regarding the atonement.

Next post we will look at Reid's view logically, from the perspective of systematic theology.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Responding to ResponsiveReiding 1 - Introduction

“For whom did Christ die?” The practical importance of one’s answer to this question should be readily apparent to anyone. For, if we do not know for whom Christ died in principle how can we be assured that He has indeed died for us personally? The question specifically regards the scope or extent of the atonement of Christ, and strikes directly at the heart of the Gospel, as well as Reformed theology.

An answer to this question has been posited by my good friend and pastor, Reid Ferguson. His answer appears to have created some anxiety among members of our church, and has elicited a critical analysis from another pastor, Fred Leuck. Pastor Reid’s answer and his responses to Pastor Leuck’s criticism have been published on Reid’s blog (along with several other posts on his view: here, here, and here.)

Some have found reading the information on Pastor Reid’s blog a bit difficult. This, I think, is primarily due to the format of the blog (particularly the back-and-forth of Pastor Reid’s responses to Pastor Leuck’s criticisms, changing fonts, etc.), as well as the somewhat disorganized “flow” of the posts in general. The use of a wide variety of technical theological terminology and many passing references to potentially unfamiliar theologians of the past could also frustrate some readers. It is my hope in this series of posts to provide a certain amount of clarity as well as analysis regarding Pastor Reid’s view of the scope of the atonement by analyzing his position through the lens of three perspectives: historical theology, systematic theology and biblical theology.

Since I think these three perspectives are essential to a thorough analysis of any doctrine, I would like to very briefly define and describe each one’s role in the search for truth, before applying each specifically to Pastor Reid’s position.

Biblical Theology

Biblical theology is the study of the text of Scripture itself. “What saith the Scripture?” is the question we ought to ask first regarding any issue of faith and life. The Scripture is our ultimate and final authority on all doctrine and resultant practice. The science of exegesis, or faithful biblical interpretation, is at the heart of biblical theology. One’s view of the scope of the atonement must be biblically faithful above all else.

Systematic Theology

Systematic theology involves the formulation of doctrines based first on their correspondence with Scripture and second on their coherence with one another logically. Biblical theology is the primary basis for systematic theology, though the role of logic in systematics ought not to be underestimated or devalued. One’s view of the scope of the atonement must also be logically coherent in relation to other biblically faithful doctrines.

(Note: Those of us with a very high view of the authority of Scripture occasionally create unnecessary tensions between revelation and reason. In an effort to declare Scripture’s supreme authority we might say something like, “If reason contradicts revelation then we must abandon reason,” or “If our systems of theology contradict the teaching of Scripture, then they must be abandoned.” At first glance this sounds correct, but do we really believe that revelation is at odds with reason or that Scripture is self-contradictory at times? Of course not. Most likely, if it appears that revelation contradicts reason it is because our interpretation of Scripture is flawed (in one place or another), not because Scripture itself is illogical in a certain place. When tension appears in the coherence of our systems of theology, we don’t abandon reason or systematics. It is a sign that we need to re-evaluate our interpretation of Scripture. In making the above sorts of statements we intend to propound a high view of Scripture, when in fact we are only buttressing our minds against perceiving our own flawed interpretations. This is why a biblically faithful conception of logic is so important to the search for truth, so that it might not be set at odds with the Bible, but used as a faithful tool of interpretation and systematics. This, of course, includes not deducing something regarding one doctrine which contradicts another biblically faithful doctrine (such as practicing sinful living because of Christ’s atonement, which is forbidden in Scripture). But this is precisely the role of systematics. It is also an important reminder that even our principles of biblical interpretation must be derived from the Bible itself!)

Historical Theology

Historical theology is studying the biblical and systematic theologies of saints who have gone before us, as well as the confessions and creeds of the Church. We recognize that throughout the history of the world there has been a faithful witness to the truth, and in studying historical theology we can gain insight in that regard. One’s view of the scope of the atonement is considered orthodox, or true, if it has been historically affirmed by God’s people as biblically faithful.

In analyzing Pastor Reid’s position regarding the scope of the atonement, I will be proceeding from the simplest to the most complex perspective, as I perceive them. I will also be foregoing any peripheral discussions of HyperCalvinism, so-called “high-per Calvinism,” the free offer of the Gospel, etc., except as they may pertain to the specific doctrine in question. I would like to take a closer look at some of the specific implications after we have analyzed the doctrine from the three perspectives outlined above. That being said, here is Reid’s position, in brief.

Pastor Reid’s Position in His Own Words

“I am constrained by the Scripture to adopt a view of Universal Atonement/Particular Redemption, affirming God’s love to all mankind as well as His secret counsels in election. In other words, an atonement that provides so that ‘whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness’ (John 12:41 / Also Acts 2:21, 10:43 & John 11:26 and others), but of course, is applied salvifically only to the elect when they believe… In a nutshell, the view takes the texts which appeal to a universal aspect to Christ’s atonement as just that – universal. And it allows the doctrines of election and justification by faith alone to carry the burden for determining who gains the salvific application of the atonement (who, is determined by unconditional election before the foundations of the world) and how they come to have their part in it (how, is by faith as a gift imparted to the elect alone – not to all mankind)… Christ dying to purchase all men did not mean all would be saved, but He DID indeed purchase all, that He might gain His elect. In this sense, He bought ALL men. (Again, this makes easy sense of passages like 2 Peter 2:1)… I am convinced that at Calvary, Christ indeed paid the penalty for every man… Thus it is I feel constrained by Scripture to affirm Christ’s true love for all mankind, and the universality of His atoning work, while at one and the same time, affirming that Redemption is particular for the elect alone… In summary, at the heart of this discussion from my point of view is the need to more carefully recognize the very important difference between Atonement and Redemption, and not to use them as indiscriminately interchangeable. Redemption is the effect of the Atonement applied. Atonement is the more general term and Redemption the more particular one. Only the elect are redeemed, but all have been atoned for.”

Defining Terms

The key to rightly understanding and analyzing Pastor Reid’s view is to recognize the distinction which he is drawing between atonement and redemption (as can be seen clearly in the above quoted section), as well as the relation between the two. This is the heart of Reid’s view. If this distinction can be demonstrated to be biblical, then his position is established; if not, it should be abandoned. But before it can be affirmed, denied, criticized or analyzed, the key terms of the doctrine must be defined. This work of definition has been assumed rather than made explicit in much of the larger discussion, and while defining terms can seem tedious at times, it is unarguably necessary to the prevention of confusion, miscommunication, and error. I will attempt to be as clear and concise as possible. Some overlap may be noticed in the definition and usage of certain terms, and very brief reference may also be made to prevailing theological views associated with each term.

Atonement is defined by Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology as “the work Christ did in his life and death to earn our salvation.” This definition is broad enough to be helpful, though the use of the term “our” in reference to salvation skirts the issue currently under examination. Atonement is often defined in many sources as Christ’s work of redemption, reconciliation, propitiation, salvation, sacrifice, etc. This, of course, simply moves the definition process back a step, in that each of these terms must be clearly defined in order to have a clear definition of atonement. It appears that atonement is most often used as the “umbrella-term” under which these other works of Christ are understood to take place. It also appears from Reid’s desire to draw a distinction between a universal atonement and a particular redemption, that a difference of definition between the two terms must be found. The distinction he draws is meaningless otherwise. Unfortunately, he has not clearly offered definitions as such, only a distinction in the relation between the two terms, atonement being more general and redemption being more specific. (Note: To be fair, Reid has referenced W.G.T. Shedd’s definitions on the subject in his Dogmatic Theology.)

A universal atonement is classically the belief that Christ has died in order to save every individual sinner in the history of the universe. The strictest logic here leads to universalism, the belief that (one way or another) all sinners will eventually be saved; though attempts have been made to mitigate this conclusion by positing a provisional universalism, which states that Christ in His atonement made provision that all men might be salvable. In contrast to this we have the belief in a limited atonement, which states that Christ’s work of atonement is limited particularly to those whom God has chosen to save. Election is viewed as the “limiting principle” placed on the atonement, in that Christ intends only to save the elect, therefore He only atones for their sins.

Redemption is the language of purchase and more specifically of ransom; and ransom is the securing of a release by the payment of a price. Christ pays the price in order to “buy” sinners. The greatest work of redemption before the cross was the Israelite exodus from Egypt.

Particular redemption is nearly synonymous with limited atonement as listed above, namely, that Christ purchases the elect, paying the penalty for their sins. General redemption is the view much like that of universal atonement listed above. (Note: Bruce Ware uses the term “general redemption” for his view of the atonement, which bears great similarity to Reid’s. Also noteworthy terms: reconciliation is to bring people from alienation to relationship, expiation is the cancellation or removal of sin, and propitiation is the turning away of the wrath of God.)

Herein is the greatest difficulty (I think) for Reid’s position on this point, as it has been thus far articulated. Atonement and redemption are terms which are most often used nearly synonymously, and drawing a fine distinction is difficult without redefinition. A Universal Atonement/Particular Redemption view sounds at first blush to be self-contradictory by definition. (Note: Mark Driscoll has referred to his own view, which is nearly identical to Reid’s, as "Unlimited Limited Atonement." This terminology is, I think, no more helpful at first.)

I think different terminology might more precisely nail down Reid’s view. (Note: For my two cents I would call it an Absolute Atonement/Limited Application theory. Reid has since stated that he prefers the term “objective atonement.”) The distinction really seems to be between what Christ’s cross work accomplished and in what way that work is applied. Reid is affirming that Christ on the cross purchases every sinner, pays the penalty for every individual sin, turns God’s wrath away from the universe, but actually applies the finally saving and sanctifying benefits of His work only to His elect, through faith.

Next post, Lord willing, we will examine Pastor Reid's view through the lens of historical theology.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Triablogue: We shall overcome

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

NOOMA Videos Critiqued

Check out these three critiques of Rob Bell's popular NOOMA video series by Greg Gilbert (Al Mohler's director of research) on his blog.

Friday, January 16, 2009

"Inauguration Day Prayer" by John Frame

What kind of prayer might John Frame pray if he were invited to do so at Barack Obama's inauguration?

Answer: here.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Thoughts upon the Occasion of the Death of a Hero

Have you ever sat at a bedside and held your hero’s hand as he quickly slipped away from you? Squeezed his hand, felt him squeeze back; squeezed again a minute later and… nothing. Have you ever watched your hero die?

“Hey, Dad, it’s me. Can you hear me?”
(Nod.)
“I brought my Bible. Do you want me to read something for you?”
(Nod.)
“How about the gospels?”
(Nod.)
“Maybe something from John?”
(Nod.)
“In the beginning was the Word…”

I’m so glad that no one else had to see that awful look in your eyes. So… scared. I’d never seen it before. Ever. I don’t like seeing it in my mind. I’m already tired of carrying it all alone, but so glad that no one else ever had to see it. So sad it was ever there. So many faces in my mind; so sad to add this one.

Remembering years ago, when you took me aside after church and made a point of looking me in the eye and telling me, “You’re a better man than I am, son.” I didn’t know what to say or do or think. I haven’t since. I still don’t. What do you do next when your hero says that? I’m not sure I’ll ever know. I wish someone would tell me, but I know I wouldn’t listen. They’re not my hero; you are. And you are gone.

I want to volunteer to go to some dark place in the world and crawl into some dark place inside myself and never come back. Lord, I’m tired. What would you have me do?

Yet I’m glad to have been overwhelmed with gratefulness, even before grief. Glad to have spent my last minutes with you saying ‘thank you’ instead of ‘goodbye.’

Thank you for being my father. For being who you were to me, and everyone else. For everything.
Thank you, Lord, for calling his name before claiming his life. For being who you are. For everything.

...I miss you.

Doxological Theology 5 - Doxological Evangelism

A church whose members live a Christ-centered life that is driven by a reliance on God’s grace for today and tomorrow and which sees in all things, joy and pain, work and recreation, fantastic and mundane, the opportunity and privilege to worship and glorify the God we know and love by our humble efforts through faith in Christ is going to suffer in this life. Overt suffering, especially in an American context, makes one stand out. If we act as living sacrifices, people will take notice, whether it be genuine interest or ridicule. When a stranger, a co-worker, an acquaintance or a friend asks a simple question or makes a simple comment about this life, there we have yet one more opportunity to worship God by extending His call to someone.

It is in our efforts to evangelize that many of us see most starkly the disjunction between our faith and our life. Many might seek to engage in intellectual apologetic justification for the Christian worldview or falling back on the Four Spiritual Laws as an explanation of the Gospel. My intention is not to cast disparaging remarks on apologetics or traditional methods of evangelism, but to show that a doxological lifestyle of theological worship is the fountain out of which evangelism most naturally flows. It also gives us the opportunity to present both the truth and the value of the Gospel. The Gospel is completely true and it is absolutely worth believing! Evangelism and apologetics become the simple tools of glorifying God, just as mop and broom may serve as tools to make our work into worship.

Jonathan Edwards said, “Prayer is as natural an expression of faith as breathing is of life.” When worship and prayer becomes the substance of our lives, then the substance of our evangelism will begin to resemble the substance of our worship and prayers. This is doxological evangelism, evangelism as worship. God is our primary audience in evangelism. When our life is framed by our theology and is overflowing with our doxology, we will see all of life as a sacred string of opportunities for worship of the Lord of all things.

In this, evangelism is no longer a scary disjunction from the normal functions of life, it is a natural outflow of our lifestyle. We need not have all the answers, we simply need to seek that the words of our mouths and meditations of our hearts are pleasing in God’s sight, since our evangelism is first intended as worship, in Spirit and in truth. We do not seek to do the Holy Spirit’s task of bringing to life the spiritually dead, we seek only to do our priestly duty, as Ichabod Spencer put it, “To drive the Holy Spirit’s arrow deeper” into the heart of the unbeliever, convicting of sin and leading to repentance and forgiveness. We seek only to work under the Holy Spirit in tearing down points of hopeful self-righteousness and wiping away hopeless self-indulgence and point others to the alien righteousness of Christ as our only ground for justification before most holy God, and finding in God the source of all hope and joy.

Conclusion

Doxological theology seeks to recover the biblical conception of the priesthood of all believers, so that all of life, indeed every thought, may be taken captive for Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). Everything in life is sacred because Christ is Lord of all things and every moment and situation in life is an opportunity for worshiping the Triune God, who is light and love and consuming fire.

Our calling into this priesthood grants us the privilege and responsibility of knowing, loving and obeying God and worshiping Him in all things and at all times, through union with Christ in His Body, the Church. We also have the responsibility to obey His word, growing in conformity to Christ.

May God grant us to grow ever more deeply in knowledge and love for Him and may we seek ever more opportunities for worship in every moment of life, in failure and success.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Doxological Theology 4 - Living Sacrifices

I would commend to any and all that Romans 1-11 gives us a fantastic and broad theological foundation for the doxological reflections and duties of Romans 12-16. (Certainly, drawing a rigid line of theological and doxological distinction beginning at chapter 12 would be inaccurate and misleading, though the emphasis appears to begin its inversion at this point. Romans 1-11 is theology infused throughout with doxology and 12-16 is doxology framed on all sides by theology.) While I may have the desire, I do not have the time currently to lay out a worthy exposition of the final five chapters of Romans. If God is willing, I may return at a later date and give what little I can to the task. I would, however, like to lay an emphasis on the transitional words of Romans chapter 12, not as the sum total of our duty, but as very near to the heart of all that our
priestly duties entail:

“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

“For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.

“Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be conceited. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Monday, January 12, 2009

Gran Torino

If you are an adult, who is capable of watching a film and still thinking like an adult (and there are less of those than one might initially imagine), then you quite simply have to go see Clint Eastwood's latest film, Gran Torino.

I can say, without an ounce of overstatement, that it is by far the best film I have seen in a decade... possibly longer. The overt redemptive analogy in the film is phenomenal. (I'd love to say more on this, but don't want to ruin the plot or the finale for those who haven't yet seen it.) The film receives its 'R' rating primarily for the liberal use of rather salty language, as the main character in the film is a Korean War veteran and a lifetime blue-collar auto worker (hence the line above regarding "adults," so as not to offend those with more delicate sensibilities).

On the 5-star scale, I give it a 17.

Doxological Theology 3 - The Priesthood of All Believers

That this doctrine has been called “the priesthood of all believers” is not an accident. It is not “the priesthood of each and every believer” because the emphasis throughout the New Testament is on the corporate nature of our priestly vocation. There are no rogue priests in the Church of God. No hang-nails on the Body of Christ. The final chapters of the book of Romans (12-16) emphasize how the internal relating and functioning of this corporate body ought to take place. “For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” (Rom. 12:4-5) Martin Luther put it like this, “A cobbler, a smith, a peasant, every man, has the office and function of his calling, and yet all alike are consecrated priests and bishops, and every man should by his office or function be useful and beneficial to the rest, so that various kinds of work may all be united for the furtherance of body and soul, just as the members of the body all serve one another.”

Our calling as priests is not for ourselves only, but far exceeds our selves. Our calling is first to God and within that calling He brings us into His corporate priesthood, His Bride, the Church. He has made us who we are and placed us where we are so that we might glorify Him by our union within Christ’s Body. It is in recognizing and savoring the grace of God corporately that sins of jealousy, envy and pride (among others) are put to death. The unity and diversity of the Holy Trinity is exemplified in the unity we have with Christ and His people by His Spirit and our singular duty as His priests of giving worship, honor and praise to Him in all things, through the many varied and diverse gifts we have received and the unpredictable situations in which God has ordained for us to use them. Our corporate life becomes a theological doxology of service, praise and adoration as a community in all things for the glory of God.

The corporate nature of our priesthood is also a preventative against “pet heresies” or the idea that individuals are granted authority to interpret Scripture alone, outside the Church. The division amongst historical church denominations, the rise of the “non-denominational denomination” (which are remarkably uniform in their styles, forms and even content of worship and theology), the elevation of anti-intellectualism, pragmatism and utilitarianism within the American church and the individualistic emphasis of our current culture and context have all contributed to the rise of “Lone Ranger spirituality” and the demand for the individual right of authoritative personal interpretation, no matter how inaccurate, divisive or silly the result.

Please hear what I am saying and what I am not saying. Our own personal study of the Scriptures is vitally important and the Church has the duty and responsibility to train believers how to “rightly handle the word of truth.” All believers have the privilege and responsibility of searching the Scripture in order to know God’s truth in all things. Only Scripture has the authority to interpret Scripture and the proper context of interpreting the Scripture has always been the message of the Scripture itself, called the rule of faith. The content of the Gospel of Christ may be traced from believer-to-believer, church-to-church, creed-to-council-to-synod throughout history from today back to the lips of the Apostles. This message, the rule of faith, is the context for every believer’s interpretation of Scripture, and it is the authoritative, accepted interpretation of the Church. The acceptance of the Church does not give the rule of faith its authority, but because of the authority of the rule of faith the Church accepts and teaches it. (This “rule of faith” context is one of the most readily available reasons for the rejection of the heresies and cults of the 19th and 20th centuries, such as Unitarianism, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Swedenborgianism, etc. These cults all re-introduced heresies of the early Church period by denying central doctrines of Scripture as affirmed by the Church throughout the centuries, such as the Trinity or the deity of Christ.)

We find a clear example of the existence of this rule of faith even in the days of the Apostles, in Gal. 1:8-9: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” The Apostle Paul gives the Galatian church a way of knowing whether someone’s message or interpretation is from God or not. The significance of his statement is that even if an angel or Paul (an Apostle!) himself preaches anything contrary to the gospel message they have already received then they should regard it as false. The standard of testing an interpretation has to be something other than the person bearing the message and it must be something to which the entire Church has access. That standard of testing the truth of a message was the Gospel message itself, which they had already received. This is the rule of faith which has been the context for Scriptural interpretation throughout the centuries, from the Apostles to today. The message of Scripture is the context of Scriptural interpretation. Since the Bible is our ultimate authority, our principles for interpreting Scripture are drawn from Scripture itself (this is the analogy of faith) and the context for determining whether an interpretation is acceptable or not is the message of Scripture (the rule of faith).

(This is obviously “self-referential” or circular, but necessarily so since all of our actions are subject to our ultimate authority (Scripture), even our interpretation of that ultimate authority! As we study Scripture, the interpretational principles we employ will continue to be molded by our Scriptural study, leading us into more accurate interpretations, which will in turn give us more scriptural principles for studying Scripture and the cycle continues, ad infinitum.)

The understanding of the use of this rule of faith gives believers an understanding of our place in the history of redemption. We can look back at the saints who have gone before us, we can align ourselves with Christ’s Church throughout history. We also find that we are not “alone” in our responsibility of interpreting Scripture. We do not need to “re-invent the wheel” when we approach Scripture. We can look to the interpretations and teachings of God’s people throughout the new covenant era for guidance, as a normative standard. We are prevented from falling mistakenly into errors which have already been propagated and condemned in the past, and we can see why the Trinity or the two natures of Christ are such truly important doctrines to our salvation.

Today, when one disagrees with the doctrine, teaching or practice of a church one need only walk a few yards to find another church which may be more suited to our own personal tastes and styles. If we look hard enough we can eventually find a church that will give acceptance, possibly even credence, to our own “pet heresies” and interpretational fallacies. We will be hard-pressed to find a biblical justification for such self-centeredness in interpretation. Individual pride of interpretation, often in the name of the Spirit, is elevated above the eternally valuable content of the word of God and the secondary authority granted to His Church in Scripture (1 Tim. 3:15, Matt. 16:17-19).

D.A. Carson relates a useful story, “Almost twenty years ago I rode in a car with a fellow believer who relayed to me what the Lord had ‘told’ him that morning in his quiet time. He had been reading the KJV of Matthew; and I perceived that not only had he misunderstood the archaic English, but also that the KJV at that place had unwittingly misrepresented the Greek text. I gently suggested there might be another way to understand the passage and summarized what I thought the passage was saying. The brother dismissed my view as impossible on the grounds that the Holy Spirit, who does not lie, had told him the truth on this matter. Being young and bold, I pressed on with my explanation of grammar, context, and translation, but was brushed off by a reference to 1 Cor. 2:10b-15: spiritual things must be spiritually discerned - which left little doubt about my status. Genuinely intrigued, I asked this brother what he would say if I put forward my interpretation, not on the basis of grammar and text, but on the basis that the Lord himself has given me the interpretation I was advancing. He was silent a long time, and then concluded, ‘I guess that would mean the Spirit says the Bible means different things to different people.’”

Sometimes the biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers has been misused to promote this kind of illogical granting of egalitarian interpretational authority to each and every believer, no matter the contradiction, confusion or division resulting from it. (In some Congregational circles it seems as if the interpretation of Scripture ought to be put to a vote so that the “true interpretation” can be found via the democratic process. However, Reformed churches are not immune to these problems either. In some Reformed circles it appears that finding the “true interpretation” of a passage merely requires counting heads among the Puritans.)

People cut themselves off from Christ’s Church at their own peril. The Church existed long before I came into this world and will continue to exist long after I am gone. By God’s grace I have been permitted to be a member of His Body, the Church. I am not the Church; we (all believers) are the Church (Rom. 12:5). God is not a polygamist. He has one spiritually united Bride, the Church, not millions of individual brides scattered abroad. We ought, therefore, to humbly submit ourselves to the authority of God’s Church (which it is given in Scripture), seeking to study diligently and responsibly the Word of God in order that we might contribute to the growth in godliness of God’s people for our own good and His glory. The priesthood of all believers is a corporate unity with Christ, not a license for error and pride, and the proper ground of Scriptural interpretation is within the rule of faith, upheld by the corporate Church, God’s priesthood.

With the mention of the responsibility of believers to humbly study and learn in order to rightly interpret God’s word, we come now to our priestly duties.

Friday, January 09, 2009

Doxological Theology 2 - The Call

I remember in my adolescence, whenever the phone rang in our home there was always a mad dash against my brothers and parents to be the first one there in order to answer the call. It didn’t matter if I was expecting a call or not, there was always a certain amount of excitement and mystery surrounding the call. Who was calling? And why? Is it for me? Does it have anything to do with me? On the other side of the coin, no amount of hoping, waiting or sitting by the phone could make it ring. Whether the phone rang or not wasn’t something I could decide; it depended entirely on the caller.

As Christians we have received a call. We must realize that our first and most absolute calling is not to a ministry, a profession, a field, a career or a geographic location. Our calling transcends all temporary occupations. We are first and foremost called to the Caller; we are His. He has “called us out of darkness and into His marvelous light.” When we understand our primary calling, then we can see that something is not sacred or secular because of what it is, but because of the reasons for it. The New Testament knows no sacred-secular distinction. As Abraham Kuyper put it, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’” All of life belongs to the Sovereign Lord. All of life is sacred. All believers are priests. Therefore, whatever we do, we do it all for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31).

This theology ought to shake loose some of the chains that have bound our doxology. The gospel is truly freeing. It destroys the idea that there are sacred and secular professions or individuals within the Church of God. Christ is our great high priest, ordained by God, and we all serve Him as members of His Body. Whether you are working in some kind of church or para-church ministry, are sent out on the missions field, serve in the military, work in custodial services or are a student, an accountant, a volunteer, a doctor, an astronaut, retired, a parent, young, old, male, female, whatever you are doing and wherever you have found yourself you can know that three things are true: (1) you are who you are and where you are as a result of God’s sovereign plan (Eph. 1:11, Acts 17:26-27), (2) you ought to worship Him in everything you think, say and do (Ps. 96:4, Rom. 12:1, James 3:10) and (3) that spiritual act of worship can be done through faith in Christ by any believer at anytime in doing *almost* anything (1 Cor. 3:10, Rom. 14:23). (*We cannot simultaneously disobey and worship God.*)

Martin Luther gives us an excellent example of the application of these truths: “To serve God simply means to do what God has commanded and not to do what God has forbidden. And if only we would accustom ourselves properly to this view, the entire world would be full of service to God, not only the churches but also the home, the kitchen, the cellar, the workshop, and the field of townsfolk and farmers... In the light of this view of the matter a poor maid should have the joy in her heart of being able to say: ‘Now I am cooking, making the bed, sweeping the house. Who has commanded me to do these things? My master and mistress have. Who has given them this authority over me? God has. Very well, then it must be true that I am serving not them alone but also God in heaven and that God must be pleased with my service, How could I possibly be more blessed? Why, my service is equal to cooking for God in heaven!’ In this way a man could be happy and of good cheer in all his trouble and labor; and if he accustomed himself to look at his service and calling in this way nothing would be distasteful to him. But the devil opposes this point of view tooth and nail, to keep one from coming to this joy and to cause everybody to have a special dislike for what he should do and is commanded to do. So the devil operates in order to make sure that people do not love the idea of work and at the same time to rob them of the joy they feel and to diminish their service to God.”

If Christ is truly Lord of all, then every second of life is an opportunity for worship. Worshiping God is anything done with the intent of glorifying God, in obedience to God’s Word. That is our doxological lifestyle.

(At this point, let’s also do away with a popular misuse of a term that has led to a popular misconception about worship: Worship is not synonymous with music. Worship includes, but is most certainly not limited to, singing songs of praise to God. Worship is the primary vocation and profession of every true believer. I have chosen to use the term doxology synonymously with worship in this paper in an effort to re-introduce the Reformation idea of life = worship and to attempt to avoid the unfortunate oversimplification of music = worship.)

In Luke 17 Jesus speaks of the coming of His kingdom, His coming in judgment. In speaking about this judgment He refers in verses 28-30 to the judgment of Sodom: “Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot - they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all - so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.” Remarkably, Christ makes no reference to the sexual immorality for which Sodom is renowned. Sodom was destroyed, first and foremost, because of godlessness. The every day activities of family and social life in Sodom were godless activities and for this they were judged and destroyed. There can be no more heartless hatred for God than casual indifference to Him in our daily lives. In the Church today many think of God as often as they think of the carpet in their living rooms.

(If we read the story of Sodom (Gen. 13-14, 18-19) properly in light of OT prophetic references and Paul’s teaching about judgment in Rom. 1, we will see that the rampant sexual immorality of that city was a “prior” judgment of God for their earlier sins of godlessness. God often judges sinners by turning them over to their own sinfulness, “taking off the restraints” in order to show how utterly wicked human hearts really are. However, Sodom’s continuous and persistent sin was a prideful self-satisfaction and indifference to the things of God in their lives. See specifically, Ezek. 16:49 and Rom. 1:18-32. They were destroyed as the final temporal judgment for all of their sins, from their original godlessness to their eventual deviant sexual immorality. To argue that they were destroyed merely for homosexuality (as many theological conservatives do) or that they were destroyed merely for godlessness (as many theological liberals do) would be equally reductionistic regarding the testimony of Scripture on the matter.)

Contrast the sin of godless indifference in Sodom with the commands for God’s people in Deuteronomy 6:5-9, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.”

We are to live lives which are saturated with godliness, over and against the Biblical example of godless indifference in Sodom and in the prevalent lifestyle in the American church today. All of our very being is meant to be in love with God. He is the foundation, framework, roof, structure and fabric of our lives. We ought to worship Him with our thoughts, words and actions wherever we are going and whatever we are doing. Robert Murray M’Cheyne said, “Human holiness is nothing other than a God-besotted life.”

This doxological lifestyle of worship, this “God-besotted life,” does not require monastic vows of separation from contact with the world, constant study of ancient manuscripts in dusty rooms full of dusty books and a vigorous regimen of self-flagellation and sensory deprivation. It does require a heart that loves God and desires to see every facet of life in relation to the Creator. It requires a simple, child-like desire to understand even a single scrap of Biblical truth and to apply that scrap to all of life... then it desires another scrap. This doxological lifestyle begins to be possible only through the power of constant, persistent prayer (1 Thess. 5:17).

Jonathan Edwards 30th resolution is, in a nutshell, a wonderful articulation of the relationship of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in growing in knowledge and love for God: “Resolved, To strive every week to be brought higher in religion, and to a higher exercise of grace, than I was the week before.” He resolved to strive in order to be brought higher in grace. That is theology applied. He will take seriously his own responsibility, even knowing that his responsibility is dependent upon the sovereign grace of God. We see in this that the great end of all life is the glory of God and the means to that end is obedient worship in all aspects of life.

All of our gifts and talents, as well as struggles and failings, may take the form of worship. In our suffering and failing we may glorify God by leaning on Him, running to Him in prayer and to His Word for answers, for comfort and for assurance. We also glorify God in applying His Word in service in order to bless His people and further His kingdom for His glory. This leads us to the corporate nature of our priesthood.

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Doxological Theology 1 - Intro

A Doxological Theology:
Toward a 21st century Rediscovery of the Priesthood of all Believers and its Implications for the Church in Worship and Evangelism

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” (Revelation ch. 1, vs. 4-8)

Doxology.

What is it? The word doxology comes from the Greek word for glory. A doxology is most commonly understood to be “a short prayer or hymn of praise that extols the majesty or glory of God.” Often we conclude our Sunday worship service with a doxology:

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Doxologies are interspersed all throughout the writings of the Apostle Paul (Romans 11:33-36, Galatians 1:5, Ephesians 3:21). Read in their context, these doxologies seem to swell out of their author; the apostle lays out his theology, building ultimately to an overwhelming crescendo of adoration and worship. “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?’ For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom. 11:33-36)

Doxology, understood as worshiping the all-glorious God, should be understood as a sub-category of theology. John Frame has defined theology as “the application of God’s Word by persons to all areas of life.” Theology emphasizes the study of God, as He has revealed Himself in His word, leading to proper understanding and knowledge of Him, ourselves, our world and the relations among those things. Proper theology is right belief or right doctrine concerning God, in all His grand unity and His rich diversity, applied to our lives. Theology is application, since we cannot truly claim to know the meaning of a text of Scripture if we have not obeyed its teaching in our lives. Proper doxology emphasizes application, specifically the obedient worship of God in all thought, speech, action and life. The content of our theology, if it is Biblical, ought to lead us into a doxological lifestyle, a life of constant, continuous, and yet spontaneous worship of the living and active Triune God, at all times and in all places. (I will continue to use the term doxology to refer to this concept of worship in every aspect of life.)

As I mentioned before, the doxology is often read or prayed or sung at the close of a worship service. But for too long and for too many the doxology has symbolized the close of worship, the end of our time of theology. Once the doxology has been sung, many return to “life as usual,” having received their theology for that day or, unfortunately, sometimes for the whole week.

But the doxology ought not to be the closing or the ending of anything. It is only the beginning of fulfilling our vocation as God’s priests, His servants whom He has amazingly chosen to call “friends.” (John 15:15)

In 1 Peter 2:9 we are told, “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” We are told that we, as believers in Christ, are called to be a royal priesthood. This theological fact ought to grant us some insight into how our lives can, and should, be an ever crescendo-ing doxology of praise to the God who called us out of darkness and into His marvelous light.

The implications of this doctrine of the priesthood of all believers are far-reaching. The intended scope of this paper is only to deal briefly with what implications this doctrine carries into the daily lives of God’s people, how we occupy our time and for what reasons. It is my intent to show that truly knowing God (theology) necessarily includes worship of God (doxology), and that obedient worship of God will lead us continuously into greater knowledge of God, and closer communion with Him. It is my contention that this ongoing cycle of theology applied as doxology will naturally and yet dynamically overflow into a lifestyle of worship and evangelism. I intend to use the Biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers to make clear the way that a “doxological theology” ought to be at the heart of every Christian’s experience, renewing in us a lifestyle of evangelistic worship to the glory of God.

Like all Scriptural truth, this doctrine has been misunderstood and misrepresented to propagate error and cause division among God’s children. It is the author’s intent to make plain and practical the Biblical intention and implications of this doctrine for today’s Church, and when possible to explain and exclude its abuses.

The Biblical conclusions to be drawn from this doctrine within the scope of this paper will generally relate to three things: the calling of God’s priesthood, the corporate nature of the priesthood, and our priestly vocational duties including the privilege of what I call doxological evangelism.

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

"I can't get no..."

Sat_is_fac_tion (def.), the fulfillment or gratification of a desire, need, or appetite

Every moment of our lives is expended in seeking satisfaction. We have delicious food that costs pennies waiting on shelves just to be eaten by us. We have medication stockpiled to relieve us of every discomfort, even bring us moments of levity possibly. We have multi-billion dollar industries devoted simply to amusing us. We have sex waiting every moment at our fingertips on the Internet and in the streets, bars, clubs and homes of the world. We burn through sexual partners, therapists, fast food, prescription drugs, movies and material possessions like a flame-thrower through tissue paper, seeking to discover just one bare moment of satisfaction.

A full stomach, professional success, laughter, the moment after an orgasm, these are all but momentary. Chasing satisfaction is like chasing the wind. You can feel it briefly rush past you, but it can never be yours, you can never keep it. You can see it, you pursue it and the moment you put your hands on it, it is gone, a perfect mirage. This is the nature of our life, and our own experience testifies to it. So all of this life is spent in chasing the wind, in seeking satisfaction.

If you could imagine someone discovering the secrets of food or drink or love or health that satisfy perfectly and forever, and yet there could be an infinite supply of it so that you could continue enjoying it forever, then you are just barely beginning to scratch the surface of what it is like to know God. Delicious food, great sex, good health, best friends, even if we have all of these things and do not know Christ, we are infinitely narrow in our search for satisfaction. All of these things are just pictures of what it is to find satisfaction in God.

The search for satisfaction is the search for “heaven on earth.” But heaven is not on earth. Everything on earth points to the God of heaven. We are made in God’s image, we are God’s mirrors and unless we are reflecting who He is at all times, we won’t be satisfied by anything in life. “Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days.” (Psalm 90:14)

Food points to God. “Taste and see that the LORD is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him.” (Psalm 34:8) “Then Jesus declared, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.’” (John 6:35)

Romance, marriage and sex are pictures of God. “Therefore, behold, I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her… And I will betroth you to me forever. I will betroth you to me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the LORD.” (Hosea 2:14, 19-20)

Just as there is physical water, there is also spiritual water. “Jesus answered, ‘Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.’” (John 4:13-14) Hunger and thirst after God, desire His love and His ways above everything else. We are created to do everything we do for God, according to the will of God written down in the Bible.

Heaven is not static, it’s not boring; it is dynamic, it is always changing because God is infinitely, perfectly satisfying. We cannot in a million lifetimes begin to fully know Him, to come to the end of our satisfaction in His beauty, wisdom, love and power. And this beauty, wisdom, love and power is nowhere in history more fully displayed than in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We were created to be satisfied in nothing less than God Himself, which is why sex, drugs, food and entertainment can not satisfy us. That’s not what they’re for.
Hear the call of God to you this moment and stop seeking satisfaction in anything anyone but the One for whom you were created:

Come, all you who are thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you who have no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost.
Why spend money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.
Give ear and come to me;
hear me, that your soul may live.
I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
my faithful love promised to David.
See, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
a leader and commander of the peoples…
Seek the LORD while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.
Let the wicked forsake his way
and the evil man his thoughts.
Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
You will go out in joy
and be led forth in peace;
the mountains and hills
will burst into song before you,
and all the trees of the field
will clap their hands.
Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree,
and instead of briers the myrtle will grow.
This will be for the LORD's renown,
for an everlasting sign,
which will not be destroyed.” (Isaiah 55)

Islamic Theology on the Horns of a Dilemma

Muslims will generally admit to having disobeyed or ignored at least some part of the Qu'ran at one time or another in their lives.

Allah is holy and righteous. Allah is the greatest good in the universe. Because he is holy and righteous he cannot stand evil. He hates evil and, because of his righteousness he will judge all evil. Because he is the greatest good, any disobeying or ignoring of his words (the Qu'ran) in any way is the greatest evil.

Wherein is the hope of mercy for a Muslim who has ever disobeyed Allah?

What is the basis for Allah's mercy to the disobedient? To say that Allah will be merciful to "good" Muslims does not solve the problem. Even in obeying Allah, they are only doing their duty. In doing their duty they cannot cover, make up for or pay back Allah for their evil disobedience. Their guilt remains. They are only doing their duty.

To say that Allah will be merciful because Allah is Most Merciful is to beg the question. To say that Allah will be merciful in spite of this evil committed against him is to turn the mercy of Allah against the holiness and righteousness of Allah.

If Allah does show mercy, he has denied his own holiness and righteousness.

If he does not show mercy, then my question remains, wherein is the hope of mercy for a Muslim who has ever disobeyed Allah, even once?

There is no basis for his mercy in the Muslim, and he cannot be merciful without being arbitrary and denying his own holiness and righteousness.

Therefore, there is no objectively justifiable reason to choose to be Islamic over and against any other form of religion or irreligion.

An atheist or a Jew or a fern worshiper has equal reason to expect Allah to be merciful to them as any Muslim.

Language implies Knowledge implies Meaning implies God

You have taken up and begun reading this short paper, and you have done so based upon (or in spite of) many assumptions that you have about life. Without taking too much of your time, I would like to make you a bit more aware of three of your own assumptions and their consequences. In reading this paper you are assuming that life is somewhat meaningful, that you can know something about that meaning and that the knowledge you have is able to be conveyed through the use of language. Would you consent that these three things are true? If not, you might just as well stop reading now, since you must believe that these (and all) words are meaningless or incomprehensible. If you do believe that, even in some small part, this paper contains comprehendible meaning conveyed through language then, if you are consistent, you must be a Christian.

Now it may appear to many that the author may be the one who is assuming far too much at this point, but it is my endeavor in a short period to show that unless one believes in the existence of God and that He is who He has revealed Himself to be in the Christian Scriptures then one must, if consistent, believe life and the world to be meaningless or incomprehensible or that language is uselessly variant or some combination of the above.

Certainly, I recognize that not everyone who assumes that life is meaningful, knowable and communicable is actually a Christian. My intent, however, is to show that Christianity (as propounded most consistently by the historical Protestant faith) is the only worldview in which one may speak while standing on the “floor” of meaningful discourse without pulling the carpet out from under one’s self.
If you have a conversation with a friend about your personal conviction that God does not exist or at least that you can’t know whether or not He exists so that, practically speaking, His existence isn’t very important, you believe that you are saying things that (to a greater or lesser extent) convey meaning. If your friend replies and you understand her, this confirms that you believe in the meaningfulness of your conversation.

Within the Christian worldview one would assume that in back of this conversation is the God whose existence you have just denied. He has created the world in order to fill it with meaning and purpose and sustains its natural order so that physical laws and scientific inquiry are not only possible, but justified and valuable. He has made humanity that we might in some ways reflect His nature and personality by giving us the capacity (rational minds), desire (imaginations) and means (logic) for knowledge of that meaning; and through His own use of language He has made knowledge and meaning objectively, contextually transferable from person to person. You may certainly maintain your belief that God’s existence is not necessary to your own, but you have then unwittingly removed the basis for your belief that there is meaningfulness in your expression of that belief to others.

To put it simply, one may assume (and regularly act upon the assumption) that life is meaningful, knowable and communicable through language without ever having any justification for these assumptions. What basis is there for a belief in meaning, knowledge and language if God has not created, sustained and redeemed the world? You see, to say that things “just are as they are” or that it isn’t necessary to believe in God in order to study “facts” of our existence is to miss the over-arching nature of the question completely. We are not speaking of “the facts,” but how one knows what is and is not a “fact” and how one justifies this knowledge as such.

Every time you open your mouth to speak, you assume that words convey knowledge of meaning and that assumption assumes the existence of God. No other worldview can consistently justify the first assumption. Is the content of what you say consistent with this, your most basically necessary presupposition (God’s existence) or not?

If we believe God exists, then our existence is dependent on His self-existence and our interpretation of facts is dependent on His pre-interpretation of those facts. If we do not believe God exists, then we must be self-existent and must simultaneously use the tools of science and logic to gain knowledge of the meaning which we ultimately also give to our world. We can never know things “as they are,” but only “as we know them” or as they are in relation to ourselves. In order to know them “as they are,” we must also know them comprehensively, which would mean knowing them inside and out as they relate to all other things, “as they have been” and “as they will be.” This is beyond our cognitive ability. Yet we must be able to have some knowledge. So we give things meaning, even as we study them in order to “find” and “know” that meaning.

Given that God’s existence is unnecessary, our world must also then consist in and be held together by the chance interactions of chemicals. We may study these chemical interactions and make descriptive statements about them at a given moment in time, but we cannot justifiably expect the future to be the same as the past simply because it has been in the past. If the floor which we base our concepts of meaning, knowledge and language upon be the scientific laws produced by chance, then we have pulled the carpet out from under ourselves again. We have built our houses on water. Chance, by definition, cannot produce laws, natural nor moral. We must be reduced to chemicals splashing together in the “hand” of impersonal mathematical probabilities, with still the constant potential for the actualization of all improbabilities, no matter how unlikely. We might cure all disease and end all poverty only to have the earth struck by a giant meteor and instantly de-populated. Where is meaning in this realm of unpredictable determinism? In this worldview is not all human endeavor just as meaningful as a man playing the violin on a rapidly sinking ship? What justification does science, art, music, education or medicine have in such a world?

Certainly these things all have immense value and meaning, but based upon what and to what end? To say they have value “in themselves” is to dodge the question at best, and to beg the question at worst. Of course, even then it would be more consistent, within this God-less worldview, to say not that they have value “in themselves” because (as stated earlier) we cannot know that, but that they have value “to ourselves.” Are you beginning to see that we can believe in meaning, knowledge, language, science, medicine, art and logic, but we cannot justify or explain our beliefs in these things apart from God? In attempting to do so we are left only with inconsistent combinations of a thoroughly subjective relativism in morality, utter skepticism in philosophy and an ultimate narcissism in practice. The ultimate meaninglessness of such a God-less worldview is either embraced or ignored so that we might force our own temporal meaning upon the world and be held responsible to no one but ourselves and, if we are charitable, each other. Why accept such a lonely, meaningless, self-centered worldview?

The skeptic dogmatically tells us that absolute truth absolutely does not exist. The Eastern mystic tells us, “He who speaks does not know and he who knows does not speak.” The tragedy lies in that he spoke in order to tell us this.

Contrast this, if you will, with the Christian worldview which not only finds meaning in the endeavors of science, medicine, art, literature, architecture and linguistics (among others) but grants each one of them an Absolute and Personal basis and a transcendent end to pursue in them: God and His glory. But one must come to God on God’s own terms, which are not harsh or heavy. One must believe that He exists and that He rewards those that earnestly seek Him in His written word, the Bible, which testifies to the incarnation of the Living Word, Jesus Christ.
If you still believe that life is meaningful and desire to have knowledge of that meaning, pick up the words of God and read the Gospel of John. Then start at the beginning and read the whole book. Seek to know the meaning of the Word of God.

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Friday, January 30, 2009

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Friday, January 16, 2009

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Monday, January 12, 2009

Friday, January 09, 2009

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

About Me

Blog Archive

Subscribe To

BlogRoll Call

Linkage

Google Mini Search

Thesaurus